28. 5. 97

CITY PLAN HEARINGS COMMITTEE

1 MAY 1997

A meeting of the City Plan Hearings Committee

was held on Thursday 1 May 1997 at 4.00 pm

PRESENT: Councillor Charles Manning (Chairman),

Councillors David Buist, David Close, David Cox, Newton Dodge, Lesley Keast

Mrs Cushla Dwyer, Messrs Rex Arbuckle, Alex Clark, Bill Edwards and Maurice Nutira.

APOLOGIES: Apologies for absence were received and accepted from Councillors Anna Crighton and Margaret Murray and from Mrs Maria Tait.

The Committee reports that:

PART A - MATTERS REQUIRING A COUNCIL DECISION

1. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT -

ISSUES ARISING FROM CITY PLAN HEARINGS RR 5060

Officer responsible	Author
Environmental Services Manager	Committee Chairman, Councillor Charles Manning
Corporate Plan Output: City Plan

(a) Redevelopment of Inner City East Residential Areas: Displacement of the Poor

Both the Transitional District Plan and the Notified City Plan have looked to support and encourage inner city living. They have done this both by limiting non-residential uses and by permitting development and re-development at higher densities than most suburban areas. In recent years there has been evidence of significant re-development. Between July 1995 and March 1997, 411 residential units have been constructed in the residential area from Madras Street to Stanmore Road, between Cashel and Chester Streets. One of the consequences of this has been the demolition of old boarding houses containing 158 rooms in the same period. Te Whare Roimata have pointed out to a hearings panel that most of the occupants of the boarding houses are unable to afford the sort of accommodation which has replaced it. For those displaced, often single men facing significant difficulties, the consequences are very severe, because most of their support networks and many of the services they require, are located in this area and finding suitable accommodation anywhere is difficult.

In response to this situation, a number of submissions to the City Plan have sought that a proportion of new developments or present sites be somehow reserved for low cost accommodation. The Panel has reluctantly concluded that the City Plan process does not offer the best, or even a legal means to do this. Section 85(2) of the RMA provides that "any person having an interest in land to which any provision or proposed provision of a plan or proposed plan applies, and who considers that the provision or proposed provision would render that land incapable of reasonable use, may challenge that provision or proposed provision on those grounds".

Further, one might argue that the provision sought would both be ineffective in that rents received from older properties would eventually fail to cover the cost of maintaining the property to the standard required by the Health Act, and unfair in that responsibility for the care of this group is properly the responsibility of society as a whole, not solely a group of inner city property owners. It would be illogical for the City Council to discourage the residential redevelopment it has long sought.

However, Te Whare Roimata have identified a genuine problem. Here is a group of people whose needs will not be met by the market place. They cannot afford the newer accommodation provided in this area, or even the rents required to ensure the continued long term viability of their present accommodation. They do not easily fit into a suburban environment.

Where there is such a clear instance of market failure, it is the responsibility of the community as a whole, principally of the Government, but to some extent the Council insofar as it is representative of the community, to ensure some reasonable standard of life for those affected by the change. In the view of the Panel, the approach should be two-fold. The Council should intercede with the Government and draw attention to the needs of this group of people; it also needs to act itself both to bring some relief and to give an assurance of the seriousness of its concerns. The Panel is aware that there is a group of the Housing Working Party actively addressing this particular situation. It supports its endeavours. The Panel does not wish to intrude into its activities, but would make one suggestion. The price of land in the Inner City East means that purchase of it from the Housing Fund would be very expensive. However, there are a number of non-complying uses in this area. It would not seem inappropriate if part or all of the land purchase cost were borne by the

Non Complying uses fund to remove such a use, e.g. a car park with existing use rights, to make a project to provide low cost housing more viable for the Council's Housing Unit or other providers.

Recommendation: 1. That this report be referred to the Housing Working Party for the purpose of:

(a) Encouraging it to pursue options for inner city housing developments in the way outlined above; and

(b) Urging it to work with the Te Whare Roimata and other interested groups in maintaining a campaign to ensure that central government addresses this case of market failure.

2. That Councillor Lesley Keast be asked to explain the Committee's concerns to the Housing Working Party.

(b) Designation of Educational Facilities

The Panel heard a submission requesting the Council to set aside land for educational facilities, particularly in North East Christchurch. The submission was supported by evidence, which though anecdotal did not seem unreasonable, that some schools were overcrowded and were coping with the pressures by locating extra classrooms on playgrounds and the like. Unfortunately, the Council itself cannot designate land where it is not the end user of that designation. Only the Minister of Education can designate land for new schools.

During the process of bringing the plan to this stage, a letter was written to the Minister of Education asking whether he wished to make any designations for new schools. He did not. However, the projected population growth for the potential planning period was much less than has been the case for the past three years and is now projected for the next decade. This growth includes growth in the number of children of school age, and thus the situation may be rather different to that presented to the minister in 1994. However, before the minister designates particular sites, he may wish to have some indication of where this increased population is likely to locate. The decisions on requests for rezoning are likely to be made in the first half of 1998.

Recommendation: 1. That the Minister of Education be informed of development changes in Christchurch City since 1993, be provided with information on latest population projections and the Council's possible re-zoning decisions and be asked again whether he wishes to designate land for future schools.

2. That prior to this, discussions be held with local Ministry of Education officials.

The meeting concluded at 5.25 pm.

CONSIDERED THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY 1997

MAYOR

---

Top of Page ~ Council Proceedings ~ Council & Councillors